[Digitalis]

how many years has it taken for them to utilize multi-core processors?

[Winder]

Technical? No. Monetary, yes. Here's what Xfinity charges for business internet:
Business Internet, Small Business Internet Service- Comcast Business

Here's what they offer for home usage:
Comcast Internet Plans | XFINITY Internet Prices and Packages

A 100 Mbps down for the home user is $50/mo while for business, it's $200. What's the difference? Support? Not quite. Home internet is capped to 5 Mbps, totally useless for running a server or distributing any kind of web content whatsoever. The reason they cap your upload is so that you can't run a business from it and they can charge you a lot more if you wanted to.

Since Google Fiber announced they were coming to Nashville, XFINITY has gotten 100x better. We have 200Mbps Down and 30Mbps Up for $50 per month. Competition is the best regulation there is. Prior to Google Fiber announcing their plans we were only getting 50 down and 5 up for the same price.

[RGlasel]

The reason they cap your upload is so that you can't run a business from it and they can charge you a lot more if you wanted to.

Close, but there is a technical bandwidth limit for every type of connection and even fiber optic connections are shared. You can have more home subscribers sharing the same connection than business subscribers, because the average demand for bandwidth is lower with home subscribers and they tend to need bandwidth at off-peak times. Restricting upload speeds is an effective way to make sure one or two home subscribers don't hog bandwidth to the detriment of other subscribers. A business subscriber is paying for a connection that is shared between fewer customers and usually comes with a higher level of service. To provide a less congested connection requires additional equipment in switches and servers from the telecom, even if both the home and business subscriber have the same type of connection at their door.

[jatrax]

how many years has it taken for them to utilize multi-core processors?

"Coming Soon" I think . I just saw a chart that shows performance degrades with more cores for many functions.

Recommended Hardware for Adobe Lightroom Classic CC - Puget Systems

[monochrome]

RE: LR for iPhone, my son shoots 500 or so jpeg frames at a time (daily in HS Lacrosse season) with a 7D, transfers 25 or 30 to his phone, edits the jpegs (mostly EV, but also a bit of sharpening and color adjusting, uploads to Cloud, downloads to Twitter, FB, Insta and his corporate website. Granted this is a social media marketing tool (Highlights in an Hour!) for his business but it can’t be as unusual as all that. I’m just some old Pentax dude in the Midwest USA and my son owns a Lacrosse equipment store,

[monochrome]

RE: LR for iPhone, my son shoots 500 or so jpeg frames at a time (daily in HS Lacrosse season) with a 7D, transfers 25 or 30 to his phone, edits the jpegs (mostly EV, but also a bit of sharpening and color adjusting), uploads to Cloud, downloads to Twitter, FB, Insta and his corporate website. Granted this is a social media marketing tool (Highlights in an Hour!) for his business but it can’t be as unusual as all that 0.0000001% noise. I’m just some old Pentax dude in the Midwest USA and my son owns a Lacrosse equipment store,

YouTube Channel highlights is done on a traditional Mac laptop with whatever editing and sound mixing tools except InstaStories straight from the phone. He once Twitter- streamed an entire HS Lacrosse game from a tripod mounted phone. He does Drone work and GoPro. Sold a 2 minute Drone video to a college. But this isn’t his business - he’s self taught.

.:

[pentaxfall]

To get an idea about upload speed of business network take few raw files to work and upload using office network.

[Oakland Rob]

Xfinity (which I noted was my carrier) isn't a telecom, so ADSL isn't what it's using; not phone lines, coax. But the principle is the same, in that you have to apportion traffic.

I looked at bit at it after my post, and it seems like the technical aspects were influenced in part by the early assumptions and infrastructure. The cable system was set up to maximize the downstream signal, since it was just TV initially. Then allowances were made for some interactivity, so it had upstream. But apparently to get symmetrical speeds (even aside from issues about managing the line for the maximum streaming of 4k movies) it would require some infrastructure upgrading.

And yeah, I'd forgotten about the limits based on deterring server use. With telephone lines, even when I had a business DSL connection (and for a while at PacBell then ATT it was ONLY business accounts that could get broadband), it was asymmetrical.

Still, a doubling wouldn't kill 'em, and would help get those photos up there faster. That's YA reason I prefer Lr Classic; uploading smart previews vs full uploads with CC. If Adobe could adopt HEIF for those smart previews it would get really fast (I'm not sure what they use for smart previews; I know it's a DNG, but not sure about the compressed image within itself).

[pentaxfall]

Many users are having slow upload issue and have complained to Adobe.
Lightroom CC: Very slow sync speeds with a large import | Photoshop Family Customer Community

[Wheatfield]

Forgive my skepticism, but I'll believe it when I see it. As much as I've loved using Lightroom over the past year, it is a pig on resources, and I don't know if the old legacy code can be salvaged. I think Adobe is just biding time until their new (non-classic) Lightroom CC product is ready to take over, at which time the legacy version will be canned. That's the primary reason I cancelled my CC subscription and began looking for alternatives; I don't want to buy into Adobe's cloud-based storage concept. I have my own storage, thank you, and I don't want to be forced to save into a proprietary paid cloud service.

Do you really have to put all your images into cloud storage with Lightroom CC? Have they really taken away the ability to store images on your own hard drives? I honestly can't see any photographer putting up with that.

[jatrax]

Do you really have to put all your images into cloud storage with Lightroom CC? Have they really taken away the ability to store images on your own hard drives? I honestly can't see any photographer putting up with that.

According to the help file it allows you to make a local 'backup' if you set your preferences that way. Not sure exactly what that means.
However, when even the normal LR cheerleaders on the net are advising to stick with 'classic' unless you can use a completely cloud based workflow I suspect it is not something I want. That may change as 'CC' continues to develop of course.

For me a cloud based workflow makes no sense even if I had the bandwidth to support it. Perhaps if I shot everything on my phone and was completely mobile it would make sense, maybe.

[Wheatfield]

According to the help file it allows you to make a local 'backup' if you set your preferences that way. Not sure exactly what that means.
However, when even the normal LR cheerleaders on the net are advising to stick with 'classic' unless you can use a completely cloud based workflow I suspect it is not something I want. That may change as 'CC' continues to develop of course.

For me a cloud based workflow makes no sense even if I had the bandwidth to support it. Perhaps if I shot everything on my phone and was completely mobile it would make sense, maybe.

I expect "local backup" means you can make a second copy to a hard drive. On the standalone Lightroom, one can choose where to put the primary import, and then choose a second location for backup. My workflow puts the import onto a hard drive on my computer, with the backup going to my DROBO box. It sounds like, from your description, that the initial import goes to the cloud, with the backup going to a hard drive.

For me, this is a completely unworkable solution as I only have so much data transfer available to me through my ISP. One photoshoot would put me over my monthly allotment.

I'm still on the standalone versions of both Lightroom and Photoshop. I wish I had bought Photoshop extended when CC first came along as there are some features I would like to have that aren't available on my version of CS6, but I'm not quite willing to go to CC to get a few things that I can do without reasonably well.

[Oakland Rob]

You could use CC with just local files, but it wouldn't be optimal. It was designed for use with cloud files. If you wanted to use local AND/OR cloud storage, you'd use Classic, which can utilize the cloud via smart previews.

Assuming a connection, CC always will upload originals to the cloud. It's kind of the point of it.

For local storage in CC, you have a bunch of options. Basically the backup IS the cloud, not the other way 'round. But you can manipulate how much you store locally. Here are the basic options:

Photo Cache
This is the amount of space reserved for storing Originals and Smart Previews that Lightroom CC manages for you.

Use Photo Cache Size Equal To % Of Your Remaining Disk Space
Enter a desired percentage value to specify how much of your available disk space Lightroom CC is allowed to use. To let Lightroom CC store more copies of your photos locally so that they are readily available for viewing and editing, increase this percentage value. If you prefer to save disk space by downloading the content when you need it, decrease the percentage value.

Storage Location For Originals
Specify where Lightroom CC stores your Originals.
To change the default location or change the current custom location, click Browse, choose a folder in the (Mac) file picker window/ (Win) Select New Storage Location dialog. The new location is now displayed in the Local Storage preferences.
To restore a custom location to the default location, click Reset.

Store A Copy Of All Smart Previews Locally
Select to always keep all the Smart Previews on your computer’s hard drive, in addition to backing them up to the cloud.

Store A Copy Of All Originals At The Specified Location
Select to always keep all the original files on your computer’s hard drive, in addition to backing them up to the cloud.

[babywriter]

Assuming a connection, CC always will upload originals to the cloud. It's kind of the point of it.

That's the problem for me in a nutshell.

There's no way to turn the cloud function off, and so that forces the user to either fight with inadequate cloud storage (doing unnecessary file management to keep below the limit) or pay Adobe even more, to reduce the pain. Once someone has, say, half a terabyte of photos there, moving them out is not something most people will do - and that's exactly what Adobe is hoping will happen. Increased subscription revenue, driven by the pain of inconvenience. Yay for vendor lock-in.

Adobe would like us to forget that there's a much easier option: saving photos to local storage, wherever we want, whenever we want, in whatever backup scheme we want, and only using cloud services when it makes sense.

[c.perkins]

I have been using LR Classic CC for about 5 months now.
Really like it and it does most everything that I need to PP my images.
Have not come close to learning all of it's capabilities but learn something new almost every time I use it.
It operates just like a stand alone copy and you also get periodic updates.

LR Classic CC is local based.(LR is in a square box icon)
LR CC is cloud based.(LR is in a rounded square box icon)

Do not know why photographers have issues with the downloadable LR's
Just choose the one that would work for your wants and needs.

For what it's worth
Clarence